Editing Nuclear power (section)

== Debate ==
{{Main|Nuclear power debate}}
{{See also|Nuclear energy policy|Pro-nuclear movement|Anti-nuclear movement}}
[[File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png|thumb|upright=2|A comparison of prices over time for energy from nuclear fission and from other sources. Over the presented time, thousands of wind turbines and similar were built on assembly lines in mass production resulting in an economy of scale. While nuclear remains bespoke, many first of their kind facilities added in the timeframe indicated and none are in serial production.
''Our World in Data'' notes that this cost is the global ''average'', while the 2 projects that drove nuclear pricing upwards were in the US. The organization recognises that the [[median]] cost of the most exported and produced nuclear energy facility in the 2010s the South Korean [[APR1400]], remained "constant", including in export.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth | title=Why did renewables become so cheap so fast? | journal=Our World in Data | date=1 December 2020 | last1=Roser | first1=Max }}</ref><br /><small>[[Levelized cost of energy|LCOE]] is a measure of the average net present cost of electricity generation for a generating plant over its lifetime. As a metric, it remains controversial as the lifespan of units are not independent but manufacturer projections, not a demonstrated longevity.</small>]]
The nuclear power debate concerns the controversy which has surrounded the deployment and use of nuclear fission reactors to generate electricity from nuclear fuel for civilian purposes.<ref name=eleven /><ref name="jstor.org">{{cite journal |author=MacKenzie |first=James J. |date=December 1977 |title=Review of The Nuclear Power Controversy by Arthur W. Murphy |journal=The Quarterly Review of Biology |volume=52 |pages=467–468 |doi=10.1086/410301 |jstor=2823429 |number=4}}</ref><ref name="marcuse.org" />

Proponents of nuclear energy regard it as a [[sustainable energy]] source that reduces [[carbon emissions]] and increases [[energy security]] by decreasing dependence on other energy sources that are also<ref name="10.1016/j.enpol.2018.12.024">{{cite journal |last1=Jewell |first1=Jessica |last2=Vetier |first2=Marta |last3=Garcia-Cabrera |first3=Daniel |title=The international technological nuclear cooperation landscape: A new dataset and network analysis |journal=Energy Policy |date=1 May 2019 |volume=128 |pages=838–852 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2018.12.024 |bibcode=2019EnPol.128..838J |s2cid=159233075 |language=en |issn=0301-4215 |url=http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/15756/1/IR_nuclear_draft_180712.pdf |access-date=31 May 2022 |archive-date=28 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220528013710/https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/15756/1/IR_nuclear_draft_180712.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="10.1016/j.anucene.2017.08.019">{{cite journal |last1=Xing |first1=Wanli |last2=Wang |first2=Anjian |last3=Yan |first3=Qiang |last4=Chen |first4=Shan |title=A study of China's uranium resources security issues: Based on analysis of China's nuclear power development trend |journal=Annals of Nuclear Energy |date=1 December 2017 |volume=110 |pages=1156–1164 |doi=10.1016/j.anucene.2017.08.019 |bibcode=2017AnNuE.110.1156X |language=en |issn=0306-4549}}</ref><ref name="10.1002/ente.201600444">{{cite journal |last1=Yue |first1=Qiang |last2=He |first2=Jingke |last3=Stamford |first3=Laurence |last4=Azapagic |first4=Adisa |title=Nuclear Power in China: An Analysis of the Current and Near-Future Uranium Flows |journal=Energy Technology |date=2017 |volume=5 |issue=5 |pages=681–691 |doi=10.1002/ente.201600444 |language=en |issn=2194-4296|doi-access=free }}</ref> often dependent on imports.<ref name="bloomberg.com">{{cite news |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aXb5iuqdZoD4&refer=us |title=U.S. Energy Legislation May Be 'Renaissance' for Nuclear Power |work=Bloomberg |access-date=2017-03-10 |archive-date=2009-06-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090626182130/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103 }}.</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Patterson |first=Thom |date=2013-11-03 |title=Climate change warriors: It's time to go nuclear |url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/index.html |newspaper=CNN |access-date=2013-11-05 |archive-date=2013-11-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131104031820/http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url= http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.html| title= Renewable Energy and Electricity| date= June 2010| publisher= World Nuclear Association| access-date= 2010-07-04| archive-date= 2010-06-19| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100619061729/http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.html| url-status= dead}}</ref> For example, proponents note that annually, nuclear-generated electricity reduces 470 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions that would otherwise come from fossil fuels.<ref>{{cite web |title=Climate |url=https://www.nei.org/advantages/climate |access-date=18 February 2022 |archive-date=18 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220218141259/https://www.nei.org/advantages/climate |url-status=live }}</ref> Additionally, the amount of comparatively low waste that nuclear energy does create is safely disposed of by the large scale nuclear energy production facilities or it is repurposed/recycled for other energy uses.<ref>{{cite web |title=Radioactive Waste Management |url=https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx |date=February 2022 |access-date=2022-02-18 |archive-date=2016-02-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160201064831/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Radioactive-Waste-Management/ |url-status=live }}</ref> [[M. King Hubbert]], who popularized the concept of [[peak oil]], saw oil as a resource that would run out and considered nuclear energy its replacement.<ref>{{cite web |author=Hubbert |first=M. King |date=June 1956 |title=Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels 'Drilling and Production Practice' |url=http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080527233843/http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf |archive-date=2008-05-27 |access-date=2008-04-18 |publisher=[[American Petroleum Institute|API]] |page=36}}</ref> Proponents also claim that the present quantity of nuclear waste is small and can be reduced through the latest technology of newer reactors and that the operational safety record of fission-electricity in terms of deaths is so far "unparalleled".<ref name="Bernard L. Cohen 1990"/> Kharecha and [[James Hansen|Hansen]] estimated that "global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalent (Gt{{CO2}}-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning" and, if continued, it could prevent up to 7 million deaths and 240{{nbsp}}Gt{{CO2}}-eq emissions by 2050.<ref name="Kharecha Pushker A 2013 4889–4895" />

Proponents also bring to attention the opportunity cost of using other forms of electricity. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that coal kills 30,000 people a year,<ref>{{cite journal |title=Particulate matter air pollution and national and county life expectancy loss in the USA: A spatiotemporal analysis |date=23 July 2019| doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002856 | last1=Bennett | first1=James E. | last2=Tamura-Wicks | first2=Helen | last3=Parks | first3=Robbie M. | last4=Burnett | first4=Richard T. | last5=Pope | first5=C. Arden | last6=Bechle | first6=Matthew J. | last7=Marshall | first7=Julian D. | last8=Danaei | first8=Goodarz | last9=Ezzati | first9=Majid | journal=PLOS Medicine | volume=16 | issue=7 | pages=e1002856 | pmid=31335874 | pmc=6650052 |doi-access=free }}</ref> as a result of its environmental impact, while 60 people died in the Chernobyl disaster.<ref>{{cite web |title=Nuclear Power and Energy Independence |url=https://reason.com/2008/10/22/nuclear-power-and-energy-indep/ |date=22 October 2008 |access-date=18 February 2022 |archive-date=18 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220218141253/https://reason.com/2008/10/22/nuclear-power-and-energy-indep/ |url-status=live }}</ref> A real world example of impact provided by proponents is the 650,000 ton increase in carbon emissions in the two months following the closure of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant.<ref>{{cite web |title=Climate |url=https://www.nuclearmatters.com/climate |access-date=18 February 2022 |archive-date=18 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220218141249/https://www.nuclearmatters.com/climate |url-status=live }}</ref>

Opponents believe that nuclear power poses many threats to people's health and environment<ref>{{cite book |author=Weart |first=Spencer R. |author-link=Spencer R. Weart |title=The Rise of Nuclear Fear |date=2012 |publisher=Harvard University Press |language=en-us}}</ref><ref name="Sturgis">{{cite web |url=http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/04/post-4.html |title=Investigation: Revelations about Three Mile Island disaster raise doubts over nuclear plant safety |last=Sturgis |first=Sue |publisher=[[Institute for Southern Studies]] |access-date=2010-08-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100418063024/http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/04/post-4.html |archive-date=2010-04-18 |url-status=dead }}</ref> such as the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, long-term safe waste management and terrorism in the future.<ref name=gierec>{{cite web |publisher= Greenpeace International and European Renewable Energy Council |date= January 2007 |url= http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/energy_revolution.pdf |title= Energy Revolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook |page= 7 |access-date= 2010-02-28 |archive-date= 2009-08-06 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090806121526/http://www.energyblueprint.info/fileadmin/media/documents/energy_revolution.pdf |url-status= dead }}</ref><ref name=protest>{{cite book |last1=Giugni |first1=Marco |title=Social protest and policy change: ecology, antinuclear, and peace movements in comparative perspective |date=2004 |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |location=Lanham |isbn=978-0-7425-1826-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Kn6YhNtyVigC&pg=PA44 |page=44 |access-date=2015-10-18 |archive-date=2023-12-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231224045246/https://books.google.com/books?id=Kn6YhNtyVigC&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live }}</ref> They also contend that nuclear power plants are complex systems where many things can and have gone wrong.<ref name="bksenpol">{{cite journal |author=Sovacool |first=Benjamin K. |author-link=Benjamin K. Sovacool |year=2008 |title=The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907–2007 |journal=[[Energy Policy (journal)|Energy Policy]] |volume=36 |issue=5 |pages=1802–1820 |bibcode=2008EnPol..36.1802S |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.040}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Cooke |first1=Stephanie |title=[[In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age]] |date=2009 |publisher=Bloomsbury |location=New York |isbn=978-1-59691-617-3 |page=280 }}</ref> Costs of the [[Chernobyl disaster]] amount to ≈$68 billion as of 2019 and are increasing,<ref name="OECD02-Ch2"/> the [[Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster|Fukushima disaster]] is estimated to cost taxpayers ~$187 billion,<ref name="guardian-20170130">{{cite news |author=McCurry |first=Justin |date=30 January 2017 |title=Possible nuclear fuel find raises hopes of Fukushima plant breakthrough |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/31/possible-nuclear-fuel-find-fukushima-plant |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170202190024/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/31/possible-nuclear-fuel-find-fukushima-plant |archive-date=2 February 2017 |access-date=3 February 2017 |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref> and radioactive waste management is estimated to cost the Eureopean Union nuclear operators ~$250 billion by 2050.<ref name="euwastecosts">{{cite news |title=Europe faces €253bn nuclear waste bill |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/04/europe-faces-253bn-nuclear-waste-bill |access-date=24 November 2021 |work=The Guardian |date=4 April 2016 |language=en}}</ref> However, in countries that already use nuclear energy, when not considering reprocessing, intermediate nuclear waste disposal costs could be relatively fixed to certain but unknown degrees<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rodriguez |first1=C. |last2=Baxter |first2=A. |last3=McEachern |first3=D. |last4=Fikani |first4=M. |last5=Venneri |first5=F. |title=Deep-Burn: making nuclear waste transmutation practical |journal=Nuclear Engineering and Design |date=1 June 2003 |volume=222 |issue=2 |pages=299–317 |doi=10.1016/S0029-5493(03)00034-7 |bibcode=2003NuEnD.222..299R |language=en |issn=0029-5493}}</ref> "as the main part of these costs stems from the operation of the intermediate storage facility".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Geissmann |first1=Thomas |last2=Ponta |first2=Oriana |title=A probabilistic approach to the computation of the levelized cost of electricity |journal=Energy |date=1 April 2017 |volume=124 |pages=372–381 |doi=10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.078 |bibcode=2017Ene...124..372G |language=en |issn=0360-5442}}</ref>

Critics find that one of the largest drawbacks to building new nuclear fission power plants are the large construction and operating costs when compared to alternatives of sustainable energy sources.<ref name="cnnchina"/><ref name="10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.015">{{cite journal |last1=Ramana |first1=M. V. |last2=Mian |first2=Zia |title=One size doesn't fit all: Social priorities and technical conflicts for small modular reactors |journal=Energy Research & Social Science |date=1 June 2014 |volume=2 |pages=115–124 |doi=10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.015 |bibcode=2014ERSS....2..115R |language=en |issn=2214-6296}}</ref><ref name="10.5281/zenodo.5573718">{{cite periodical |title=Kernenergie und Klima |periodical=Diskussionsbeiträge der Scientists for Future |date=16 October 2021 |doi=10.5281/zenodo.5573718 |doi-access=free |language=de |last1=Wealer |first1=Ben |last2=Breyer |first2=Christian |last3=Hennicke |first3=Peter |last4=Hirsch |first4=Helmut |last5=von Hirschhausen |first5=Christian |last6=Klafka |first6=Peter |last7=Kromp-Kolb |first7=Helga |last8=Präger |first8=Fabian |last9=Steigerwald |first9=Björn |last10=Traber |first10=Thure |last11=Baumann |first11=Franz |last12=Herold |first12=Anke |last13=Kemfert |first13=Claudia |last14=Kromp |first14=Wolfgang |last15=Liebert |first15=Wolfgang |last16=Müschen |first16=Klaus }}</ref><ref name="10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.012">{{cite journal |last1=Ramana |first1=M. V. |last2=Ahmad |first2=Ali |title=Wishful thinking and real problems: Small modular reactors, planning constraints, and nuclear power in Jordan |journal=Energy Policy |date=1 June 2016 |volume=93 |pages=236–245 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.012 |bibcode=2016EnPol..93..236R |language=en |issn=0301-4215}}</ref><ref name="10.1177/2399654418777765">{{cite journal |last1=Meckling |first1=Jonas |title=Governing renewables: Policy feedback in a global energy transition |journal=Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space |date=1 March 2019 |volume=37 |issue=2 |pages=317–338 |doi=10.1177/2399654418777765 |s2cid=169975439 |language=en |issn=2399-6544}}</ref> Further costs include ongoing research and development, expensive [[Nuclear reprocessing|reprocessing]] in cases where such is practiced<ref name="repr"/><ref name="future1"/><ref name="pluto"/><ref name="detect"/> and decommissioning.<ref>[https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/decommissioning.html Decommissioning a Nuclear Power Plant] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070714140023/http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/students/decommissioning.html |date=2007-07-14 }}, 2007-4-20, [http://www.nrc.gov/ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200406093326/https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc.html |date=2020-04-06 }}, Retrieved 2007-6-12</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=13304&LangType=2057 |title=Decommissioning at Chernobyl |publisher=World-nuclear-news.org |date=2007-04-26 |access-date=2015-11-01 |archive-date=2010-08-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100823095416/http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=13304&LangType=2057 }}</ref><ref name="10.1016/j.rser.2021.110836">{{cite journal |last1=Wealer |first1=B. |last2=Bauer |first2=S. |last3=Hirschhausen |first3=C. v. |last4=Kemfert |first4=C. |last5=Göke |first5=L. |title=Investing into third generation nuclear power plants - Review of recent trends and analysis of future investments using Monte Carlo Simulation |journal=Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews |date=1 June 2021 |volume=143 |page=110836 |doi=10.1016/j.rser.2021.110836 |bibcode=2021RSERv.14310836W |s2cid=233564525 |language=en |issn=1364-0321 |quote=We conclude that our numerical exercise confirms the literature review, i.e. the economics of nuclear power plants are not favorable to future investments, even though additional costs (decommissioning, long-term storage) and the social costs of accidents are not even considered.}}</ref> Proponents note that focussing on the [[levelized cost of energy]] (LCOE), however, ignores the value premium associated with 24/7 dispatchable electricity and the cost of storage and backup systems necessary to integrate variable energy sources into a reliable electrical grid.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.reutersevents.com/nuclear/new-nuclear-lto-among-cheapest-low-carbon-options-report-shows|title=New nuclear, LTO among cheapest low carbon options, report shows|website=Reuters Events|access-date=2022-04-19|archive-date=2022-05-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220519113259/https://www.reutersevents.com/nuclear/new-nuclear-lto-among-cheapest-low-carbon-options-report-shows|url-status=live}}</ref> "Nuclear thus remains the dispatchable low-carbon technology with the lowest expected costs in 2025. Only large hydro reservoirs can provide a similar contribution at comparable costs but remain highly dependent on the natural endowments of individual countries."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020|title=Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020 – Analysis|website=IEA|date=9 December 2020 |access-date=2020-12-12|archive-date=2022-04-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220402003026/https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020|url-status=live}}</ref>
[[File:Grüne protests against nuclear energy.jpg|right|thumb|Anti-nuclear protest near [[Deep geological repository|nuclear waste disposal centre]] at [[Gorleben]] in northern Germany]]
Overall, many opponents find that nuclear energy cannot meaningfully contribute to climate change mitigation. In general, they find it to be, too dangerous, too expensive, to take too long for deployment, to be an obstacle to achieving a transition towards sustainability and carbon-neutrality,<ref name="10.5281/zenodo.5573718"/><ref>{{cite web |title=Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition |website=University of Oxford |url=https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/files/energy_transition_paper-INET-working-paper.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211018072825/https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/files/energy_transition_paper-INET-working-paper.pdf |archive-date=2021-10-18 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="slowexpensive">{{cite news |title=Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J |access-date=24 November 2021 |work=Reuters |date=24 September 2019 |language=en |archive-date=16 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210316222844/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Farmer |first1=J. Doyne |last2=Way |first2=Rupert |last3=Mealy |first3=Penny |title=Estimating the costs of energy transition scenarios using probabilistic forecasting methods |website=University of Oxford |date=December 2020 |url=https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/files/energy_transition_paper-INET-working-paper.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211018072825/https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/files/energy_transition_paper-INET-working-paper.pdf |archive-date=2021-10-18 |language=en}}</ref> effectively being a distracting<ref name="gates2">{{cite news |title=Scientists pour cold water on Bill Gates' nuclear plans {{!}} DW {{!}} 08.11.2021 |url=https://www.dw.com/en/scientists-pour-cold-water-on-bill-gates-nuclear-plans/a-59751405 |access-date=24 November 2021 |work=Deutsche Welle (www.dw.com) |archive-date=24 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211124073731/https://www.dw.com/en/scientists-pour-cold-water-on-bill-gates-nuclear-plans/a-59751405 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="cd1">{{cite web |title=Scientists Warn Experimental Nuclear Plant Backed by Bill Gates Is 'Outright Dangerous' |url=https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/11/17/scientists-warn-experimental-nuclear-plant-backed-bill-gates-outright-dangerous |website=Common Dreams |access-date=24 November 2021 |language=en |archive-date=24 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211124190922/https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/11/17/scientists-warn-experimental-nuclear-plant-backed-bill-gates-outright-dangerous |url-status=live }}</ref> competition for resources (i.e. human, financial, time, infrastructure and expertise) for the deployment and development of alternative, sustainable, [[energy system]] technologies<ref name="mil1">{{cite web |title=Hidden military implications of 'building back' with new nuclear in the UK |url=https://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-09/SGR_RS03_2021_Johnstone%2BStirling.pdf |access-date=24 November 2021 |archive-date=23 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211023044245/https://www.sgr.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-09/SGR_RS03_2021_Johnstone%2BStirling.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="cd1"/><ref name="10.5281/zenodo.5573718"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Szyszczak |first1=Erika |title=State aid for energy infrastructure and nuclear power projects |journal=ERA Forum |date=1 July 2015 |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=25–38 |doi=10.1007/s12027-015-0371-6 |s2cid=154617833 |language=en |issn=1863-9038}}</ref> (such as for wind, ocean and solar<ref name="10.5281/zenodo.5573718"/> – including e.g. [[floating solar]]&nbsp;– as well as ways to manage [[Variable renewable energy|their intermittency]] other than nuclear baseload<ref name=MIT2018>{{cite web|url=http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Future-of-Nuclear-Energy-in-a-Carbon-Constrained-World.pdf|title=The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World|date=2018|publisher=[[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]|access-date=2019-01-05|archive-date=2019-03-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190327040903/http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Future-of-Nuclear-Energy-in-a-Carbon-Constrained-World.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> generation such as [[dispatchable generation]], renewables-diversification,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Crespo |first1=Diego |title=STE can replace coal, nuclear and early gas as demonstrated in an hourly simulation over 4 years in the Spanish electricity mix |journal=AIP Conference Proceedings |series=SOLARPACES 2018: International Conference on Concentrating Solar Power and Chemical Energy Systems |date=25 July 2019 |volume=2126 |issue=1 |page=130003 |doi=10.1063/1.5117645 |bibcode=2019AIPC.2126m0003C |s2cid=201317957 |issn=0094-243X|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="10.1016/j.esr.2019.01.007">{{cite journal |last1=Benasla |first1=Mokhtar |last2=Hess |first2=Denis |last3=Allaoui |first3=Tayeb |last4=Brahami |first4=Mostefa |last5=Denaï |first5=Mouloud |title=The transition towards a sustainable energy system in Europe: What role can North Africa's solar resources play? |journal=Energy Strategy Reviews |date=1 April 2019 |volume=24 |pages=1–13 |doi=10.1016/j.esr.2019.01.007 |s2cid=169342098 |language=en |issn=2211-467X|doi-access=free |bibcode=2019EneSR..24....1B |hdl=2299/21546 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> [[super grid]]s, flexible energy demand and supply regulating [[smart grid]]s and energy storage<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Haller |first1=Markus |last2=Ludig |first2=Sylvie |last3=Bauer |first3=Nico |title=Decarbonization scenarios for the EU and MENA power system: Considering spatial distribution and short term dynamics of renewable generation |journal=Energy Policy |date=1 August 2012 |volume=47 |pages=282–290 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.069 |bibcode=2012EnPol..47..282H |language=en |issn=0301-4215}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Arbabzadeh |first1=Maryam |last2=Sioshansi |first2=Ramteen |last3=Johnson |first3=Jeremiah X. |last4=Keoleian |first4=Gregory A. |title=The role of energy storage in deep decarbonization of electricity production |journal=Nature Communications |date=30 July 2019 |volume=10 |issue=1 |page=3413 |doi=10.1038/s41467-019-11161-5 |pmid=31363084 |pmc=6667472 |bibcode=2019NatCo..10.3413A |language=en |issn=2041-1723}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Liu |first1=Jianing |last2=Zhang |first2=Weiqi |last3=Zhou |first3=Rui |last4=Zhong |first4=Jin |title=2012 IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting |chapter=Impacts of distributed renewable energy generations on smart grid operation and dispatch |date=July 2012 |pages=1–5 |doi=10.1109/PESGM.2012.6344997|isbn=978-1-4673-2729-9 |s2cid=25157226 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ayodele |first1=T. R. |last2=Ogunjuyigbe |first2=A. S. O. |title=Mitigation of wind power intermittency: Storage technology approach |journal=Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews |date=1 April 2015 |volume=44 |pages=447–456 |doi=10.1016/j.rser.2014.12.034 |bibcode=2015RSERv..44..447A |language=en |issn=1364-0321}}</ref><ref name="natgeo"/> technologies).<ref name="10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.013">{{cite journal |last1=Khatib |first1=Hisham |last2=Difiglio |first2=Carmine |title=Economics of nuclear and renewables |journal=Energy Policy |date=1 September 2016 |volume=96 |pages=740–750 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.013 |bibcode=2016EnPol..96..740K |language=en |issn=0301-4215}}</ref><ref>{{cite periodical |title=Klimaverträgliche Energieversorgung für Deutschland – 16 Orientierungspunkte |trans-title=Climate-friendly energy supply for Germany—16 points of orientation |periodical=Diskussionsbeiträge der Scientists for Future |date=22 April 2021 |doi=10.5281/zenodo.4409334 |doi-access=free |language=de |last1=Gerhards |first1=Christoph |last2=Weber |first2=Urban |last3=Klafka |first3=Peter |last4=Golla |first4=Stefan |last5=Hagedorn |first5=Gregor |last6=Baumann |first6=Franz |last7=Brendel |first7=Heiko |last8=Breyer |first8=Christian |last9=Clausen |first9=Jens |last10=Creutzig |first10=Felix |last11=Daub |first11=Claus-Heinrich |last12=Helgenberger |first12=Sebastian |last13=Hentschel |first13=Karl-Martin |last14=Hirschhausen |first14=Christian von |last15=Jordan |first15=Ulrike |last16=Kemfert |first16=Claudia |last17=Krause |first17=Harald |last18=Linow |first18=Sven |last19=Oei |first19=Pao-Yu |last20=Pehnt |first20=Martin |last21=Pfennig |first21=Andreas |last22=Präger |first22=Fabian |last23=Quaschning |first23=Volker |last24=Schneider |first24=Jens |last25=Spindler |first25=Uli |last26=Stelzer |first26=Volker |last27=Sterner |first27=Michael |last28=Wagener-Lohse |first28=Georg |last29=Weinsziehr |first29=Theresa }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lap |first1=Tjerk |last2=Benders |first2=René |last3=van der Hilst |first3=Floor |last4=Faaij |first4=André |title=How does the interplay between resource availability, intersectoral competition and reliability affect a low-carbon power generation mix in Brazil for 2050? |journal=Energy |date=15 March 2020 |volume=195 |page=116948 |doi=10.1016/j.energy.2020.116948 |s2cid=214336333 |language=en |issn=0360-5442|doi-access=free |bibcode=2020Ene...19516948L }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bustreo |first1=C. |last2=Giuliani |first2=U. |last3=Maggio |first3=D. |last4=Zollino |first4=G. |title=How fusion power can contribute to a fully decarbonized European power mix after 2050 |journal=[[Fusion Engineering and Design]] |date=1 September 2019 |volume=146 |pages=2189–2193 |doi=10.1016/j.fusengdes.2019.03.150 |bibcode=2019FusED.146.2189B |s2cid=133216477 |language=en |issn=0920-3796}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=McPherson |first1=Madeleine |last2=Tahseen |first2=Samiha |title=Deploying storage assets to facilitate variable renewable energy integration: The impacts of grid flexibility, renewable penetration, and market structure |journal=Energy |date=15 February 2018 |volume=145 |pages=856–870 |doi=10.1016/j.energy.2018.01.002 |bibcode=2018Ene...145..856M |language=en |issn=0360-5442}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kan |first1=Xiaoming |last2=Hedenus |first2=Fredrik |last3=Reichenberg |first3=Lina |title=The cost of a future low-carbon electricity system without nuclear power – the case of Sweden |journal=Energy |date=15 March 2020 |volume=195 |page=117015 |doi=10.1016/j.energy.2020.117015| arxiv=2001.03679  |bibcode=2020Ene...19517015K |s2cid=213083726 |language=en |issn=0360-5442 |quote=There is little economic rationale for Sweden to reinvest in nuclear power. Abundant hydropower allows for a low-cost renewable power system without nuclear.}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=McPherson |first1=Madeleine |last2=Karney |first2=Bryan |title=A scenario based approach to designing electricity grids with high variable renewable energy penetrations in Ontario, Canada: Development and application of the SILVER model |journal=Energy |date=1 November 2017 |volume=138 |pages=185–196 |doi=10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.027 |bibcode=2017Ene...138..185M |language=en |issn=0360-5442 |quote=Several flexibility options have been proposed to facilitate VRE integration, including interconnecting geographically dispersed resources, interconnecting different VRE types, building flexible and dispatchable generation assets, shifting flexible loads through demand response, shifting electricity generation through storage, curtailing excess generation, interconnections to the transport or heating energy sectors, and improving VRE forecasting methodologies (Delucchi and Jacobson 2011). Previous VRE integration studies have considered different combinations of balancing options, but few have considered all flexibility options simultaneously.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Barriers to Renewable Energy Technologies {{!}} Union of Concerned Scientists |url=https://ucsusa.org/resources/barriers-renewable-energy-technologies |website=ucsusa.org |access-date=25 October 2021 |language=en |quote=Renewable energy opponents love to highlight the variability of the sun and wind as a way of bolstering support for coal, gas, and nuclear plants, which can more easily operate on-demand or provide "baseload" (continuous) power. The argument is used to undermine large investments in renewable energy, presenting a rhetorical barrier to higher rates of wind and solar adoption. But reality is much more favorable for clean energy. |archive-date=25 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211025160437/https://ucsusa.org/resources/barriers-renewable-energy-technologies |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="dont">{{cite web |title=CoP 26 Statement {{!}} Don't nuke the Climate! |url=https://dont-nuke-the-climate.org/cop-26-statement |access-date=24 November 2021 |archive-date=25 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211125033418/https://www.dont-nuke-the-climate.org/cop-26-statement |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Nevertheless, there is ongoing research and debate over costs of new nuclear, especially in regions where i.a. seasonal energy storage is difficult to provide and which aim to [[fossil fuel phase-out|phase out fossil fuels]] in favor of [[low carbon power]] faster than the global average.<ref>{{cite news |title=Does Hitachi decision mean the end of UK's nuclear ambitions? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/17/does-the-hitachi-decision-mean-the-end-of-the-uks-nuclear-dream |work=The Guardian |date=17 January 2019}}</ref> Some find that financial transition costs for a 100% renewables-based European energy system that has completely phased out nuclear energy could be more costly by 2050 based on current technologies (i.e. not considering potential advances in e.g. [[green hydrogen]], transmission and flexibility capacities, ways to reduce energy needs, geothermal energy and fusion energy) when the grid only extends across Europe.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Zappa |first1=William |last2=Junginger |first2=Martin |last3=van den Broek |first3=Machteld |title=Is a 100% renewable European power system feasible by 2050? |journal=Applied Energy |date=1 January 2019 |volume=233-234 |pages=1027–1050 |doi=10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.08.109 |s2cid=116855350 |language=en |issn=0306-2619|doi-access=free |bibcode=2019ApEn..233.1027Z }}</ref> Arguments of economics and safety are used by both sides of the debate.

=== Comparison with renewable energy ===
{{See also|Renewable energy debate}}

Slowing [[global warming]] requires a transition to a [[low-carbon economy]], mainly by burning far less [[fossil fuel]]. Limiting global warming to 1.5{{nbsp}}°C is technically possible if no new fossil fuel power plants are built from 2019.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Smith|display-authors=etal|date=15 January 2019 |title=Current fossil fuel infrastructure does not yet commit us to 1.5 °C warming |journal=Nature |volume=10|issue=1|page=101|bibcode=2019NatCo..10..101S|doi=10.1038/s41467-018-07999-w|pmid=30647408|pmc=6333788}}</ref> This has generated considerable interest and dispute in determining the best path forward to rapidly replace fossil-based fuels in the [[global energy consumption|global energy mix]],<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change|title=What It Would Really Take to Reverse Climate Change|magazine=IEEE Spectrum|author1=Ross Koningstein|author2=David Fork|date=18 November 2014|access-date=13 January 2019|archive-date=24 November 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161124081052/https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Johnson |first=Nathanael |date=2018 |title=Agree to Agree Fights over renewable standards and nuclear power can be vicious. Here's a list of things that climate hawks agree on. |url=https://grist.org/article/most-paths-to-a-clean-energy-future-start-the-same-way/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190116100151/https://grist.org/article/most-paths-to-a-clean-energy-future-start-the-same-way/ |archive-date=2019-01-16 |access-date=2019-01-16 |work=[[Grist (magazine)|Grist]]}}</ref> with intense academic debate.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.utilitydive.com/news/whats-missing-from-the-100-renewable-energy-debate/447658/ |title=What's missing from the 100% renewable energy debate |work=Utility Dive |access-date=2019-01-05 |archive-date=2019-01-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190106010934/https://www.utilitydive.com/news/whats-missing-from-the-100-renewable-energy-debate/447658/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="GTM-NewFront">{{cite web |last1=Deign |first1=Jason |title=Renewables or Nuclear? A New Front in the Academic War Over Decarbonization |url=https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-war-over-renewables-versus-nuclear |website=gtm |publisher=Greentech Media |date=March 30, 2018 |access-date=December 13, 2018 |archive-date=December 15, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181215224058/https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/the-war-over-renewables-versus-nuclear |url-status=live }}</ref> Sometimes the IEA says that countries without nuclear should develop it as well as their renewable power.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dailysabah.com/energy/2019/07/06/turkey-may-benefit-from-nuclear-power-in-its-bid-for-clean-energy|title=Turkey may benefit from nuclear power in its bid for clean energy|website=DailySabah|date=6 July 2019|access-date=2019-07-14|archive-date=2019-07-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190714182533/https://www.dailysabah.com/energy/2019/07/06/turkey-may-benefit-from-nuclear-power-in-its-bid-for-clean-energy|url-status=live}}</ref>
{{Pie chart
| thumb = right
| caption = World total primary energy supply of 162,494 [[Kilowatt hour#Watt-hour multiples|TWh]] (or 13,792 [[tonne of oil equivalent|Mtoe]]) by fuels in 2017 (IEA, 2019)<ref name="IEA-Report-keyworld-2019">{{cite web |title = 2019 Key World Energy Statistics |date = 2019 |publisher = IEA |url = https://webstore.iea.org/download/direct/2831?fileName=Key_World_Energy_Statistics_2019.pdf }}{{Dead link|date=August 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>{{rp|6,8}}
| other =
| label1 = Oil
| value1 = 32
| color1 = #7C6250
| label2 = Coal/Peat/Shale
| value2 = 27.1
| color2 = #313c42
| label3 = Natural Gas
| value3 = 22.2
| color3 = #ef8e39
| label4 = Biofuels and waste
| value4 = 9.5
| color4 = #ABFF57
| label5 = Nuclear
| value5 = 4.9
| color5 = #de2821
| label6 = Hydro
| value6 = 2.5
| color6 = #005CE6
| label7 = Others ([[Renewable energy|Renewables]])
| value7 = 1.8
| color7 = #00CC4B
}}

Several studies suggest that it might be theoretically possible to cover a majority of world energy generation with new renewable sources. The [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]] (IPCC) has said that if governments were supportive, renewable energy supply could account for close to 80% of the world's energy use by 2050.<ref name="ipccccc">{{cite news |author=Harvey |first=Fiona |author-link=Fiona Harvey |date=2011-05-09 |title=Renewable energy can power the world, says landmark IPCC study |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/09/ipcc-renewable-energy-power-world |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190327090312/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/09/ipcc-renewable-energy-power-world |archive-date=2019-03-27 |access-date=2016-12-12 |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London, England}}</ref> While in developed nations the economically feasible geography for new hydropower is lacking, with every geographically suitable area largely already exploited,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://water.usgs.gov/edu/wuhy.html|publisher=[[USGS]]|title=Hydroelectric power water use|access-date=2018-12-13|archive-date=2018-11-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181109085438/https://water.usgs.gov/edu/wuhy.html|url-status=live}}</ref> some proponents of wind and solar energy claim these resources alone could eliminate the need for nuclear power.<ref name="GTM-NewFront" /><ref>{{cite web |author=Stover |first=Dawn |date=January 30, 2014 |title=Nuclear vs. renewables: Divided they fall |url=https://thebulletin.org/2014/01/nuclear-vs-renewables-divided-they-fall/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190327040903/https://thebulletin.org/2014/01/nuclear-vs-renewables-divided-they-fall/ |archive-date=March 27, 2019 |access-date=January 30, 2019 |work=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists}}</ref>

Nuclear power is comparable to, and in some cases lower, than many renewable energy sources in terms of lives lost in the past per unit of electricity delivered.<ref name="MarkandyaWilkinson2007" /><ref name="without the hot air" /><ref name="Starfelt">{{cite web |last1=Starfelt |first1=Nils |last2=Wikdahl |first2=Carl-Erik |title=Economic Analysis of Various Options of Electricity Generation – Taking into Account Health and Environmental Effects |url=http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927230434/http://manhaz.cyf.gov.pl/manhaz/strona_konferencja_EAE-2001/15%20-%20Polenp~1.pdf |archive-date=2007-09-27 |access-date=2012-09-08}}</ref> Depending on recycling of renewable energy technologies, nuclear reactors may produce a much smaller volume of waste, although much more toxic, expensive to manage and longer-lived.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Biello |first=David |date=2009-01-28 |title=Spent Nuclear Fuel: A Trash Heap Deadly for 250,000 Years or a Renewable Energy Source? |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source |url-status=live |journal=Scientific American |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170903121314/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source |archive-date=2017-09-03 |access-date=2014-01-24}}</ref><ref name="worldnuclearwastereport"/> A nuclear plant also needs to be disassembled and removed and much of the disassembled nuclear plant needs to be stored as low-level nuclear waste for a few decades.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2012/pdfs/UYB_2012_CH_3.pdf|title=Closing and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants|date=2012-03-07|website=United Nations Environment Programme|archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160518164428/http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2012/pdfs/UYB_2012_CH_3.pdf|archive-date=2016-05-18|access-date=2013-01-04|url-status=dead}}</ref> The disposal and management of the wide variety<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ewing |first1=Rodney C. |last2=Whittleston |first2=Robert A. |last3=Yardley |first3=Bruce W. D. |date=1 August 2016 |title=Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste: a Primer |url=http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/104498/3/YardleyGeological%20Disposal%20of%20Nuclear%20Waste.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Elements |volume=12 |issue=4 |pages=233–237 |bibcode=2016Eleme..12..233E |doi=10.2113/gselements.12.4.233 |issn=1811-5209 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211216110251/https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/104498/3/YardleyGeological%20Disposal%20of%20Nuclear%20Waste.pdf |archive-date=16 December 2021 |access-date=1 December 2021}}</ref> of radioactive waste, of which there are over one quarter of a million tons as of 2018, can cause future damage and costs across the world [[radioactive waste#Fuel composition and long term radioactivity|for over or during hundreds of thousands of years]]<ref>{{cite web |last1=Stothard |first1=Michael |title=Nuclear waste: keep out for 100,000 years |url=https://www.ft.com/content/db87c16c-4947-11e6-b387-64ab0a67014c |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221210/https://www.ft.com/content/db87c16c-4947-11e6-b387-64ab0a67014c |archive-date=2022-12-10 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |website=Financial Times |access-date=28 November 2021 |date=14 July 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=High-Level Waste |url=https://www.nrc.gov/waste/high-level-waste.html |website=NRC Web |access-date=28 November 2021 |archive-date=27 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211127082101/https://www.nrc.gov/waste/high-level-waste.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Grambow |first1=Bernd |title=Mobile fission and activation products in nuclear waste disposal |journal=Journal of Contaminant Hydrology |date=12 December 2008 |volume=102 |issue=3 |pages=180–186 |doi=10.1016/j.jconhyd.2008.10.006 |pmid=19008015 |bibcode=2008JCHyd.102..180G |language=en |issn=0169-7722}}</ref> – possibly over a million years,<ref name="spektr">{{cite web |title=Kernkraft: 6 Fakten über unseren Atommüll und dessen Entsorgung |url=https://www.spektrum.de/wissen/6-fakten-ueber-unseren-atommuell-und-dessen-entsorgung/1342930 |website=www.spektrum.de |access-date=28 November 2021 |language=de |archive-date=28 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211128121629/https://www.spektrum.de/wissen/6-fakten-ueber-unseren-atommuell-und-dessen-entsorgung/1342930 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rosborg |first1=B. |last2=Werme |first2=L. |title=The Swedish nuclear waste program and the long-term corrosion behaviour of copper |journal=Journal of Nuclear Materials |date=30 September 2008 |volume=379 |issue=1 |pages=142–153 |doi=10.1016/j.jnucmat.2008.06.025 |bibcode=2008JNuM..379..142R |language=en |issn=0022-3115}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shrader-Frechette |first1=Kristin |title=Mortgaging the future: Dumping ethics with nuclear waste |journal=Science and Engineering Ethics |date=1 December 2005 |volume=11 |issue=4 |pages=518–520 |doi=10.1007/s11948-005-0023-2 |pmid=16279752 |s2cid=43721467 |language=en |issn=1471-5546}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shrader-Frechette |first1=Kristin |title=Ethical Dilemmas and Radioactive Waste: A Survey of the Issues |journal=Environmental Ethics |date=1 November 1991 |volume=13 |issue=4 |pages=327–343 |doi=10.5840/enviroethics199113438 |language=en}}</ref> due to issues such as leakage,<ref>{{cite web |title=Radioactive waste leaking at German storage site: report {{!}} DW {{!}} 16.04.2018 |url=https://www.dw.com/en/radioactive-waste-leaking-at-german-storage-site-report/a-43399896 |website=DW.COM |publisher=Deutsche Welle (www.dw.com) |access-date=24 November 2021 |archive-date=24 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211124190921/https://www.dw.com/en/radioactive-waste-leaking-at-german-storage-site-report/a-43399896 |url-status=live }}</ref> malign retrieval, vulnerability to attacks (including of reprocessing<ref name="civlib"/><ref name="repr"/> and [[Vulnerability of nuclear plants to attack|power plants]]), groundwater contamination, radiation and leakage to above ground, brine leakage or bacterial corrosion.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Libert |first1=Marie |last2=Schütz |first2=Marta Kerber |last3=Esnault |first3=Loïc |last4=Féron |first4=Damien |last5=Bildstein |first5=Olivier |title=Impact of microbial activity on the radioactive waste disposal: long term prediction of biocorrosion processes |journal=Bioelectrochemistry |date=June 2014 |volume=97 |pages=162–168 |doi=10.1016/j.bioelechem.2013.10.001 |pmid=24177136 |issn=1878-562X}}</ref><ref name="spektr"/><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Butler |first1=Declan |title=Nuclear-waste facility on high alert over risk of new explosions |journal=Nature |date=27 May 2014 |doi=10.1038/nature.2014.15290 |s2cid=130354940 |language=en |issn=1476-4687}}</ref><ref name="statusreport">{{cite web |title=World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2021 |url=https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/wnisr2021-lr.pdf |access-date=24 November 2021 |archive-date=7 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231207093553/https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/wnisr2021-lr.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> The European Commission Joint Research Centre found that as of 2021 the necessary technologies for geological disposal of nuclear waste are now available and can be deployed.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf|title=Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the 'do no significant harm' criteria of Regulation (EU) 2020/852 ('Taxonomy Regulation')|date=2021|access-date=2021-11-27|publisher=European Commission Joint Research Centre|page=8|archive-date=2021-04-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210426095255/https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/210329-jrc-report-nuclear-energy-assessment_en.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Corrosion experts noted in 2020 that putting the problem of storage off any longer "isn't good for anyone".<ref>{{cite web |title=As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions |url=https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12 |website=cen.acs.org |access-date=28 November 2021 |archive-date=28 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211128121633/https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12 |url-status=live }}</ref> Separated [[plutonium]] and [[enriched uranium]] could be used for [[nuclear weapon]]s, which&nbsp;– even with the current centralized control (e.g. state-level) and level of prevalence – are considered to be a difficult and [[Global catastrophic risk#Warfare and mass destruction|substantial global risk]] for substantial future impacts on human health, lives, civilization and the environment.<ref name="repr">{{cite web|title=Nuclear Reprocessing: Dangerous, Dirty, and Expensive|url=https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-reprocessing-dangerous-dirty-and-expensive|publisher=Union of Concerned Scientists|access-date=26 January 2020|archive-date=15 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210115202035/https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-reprocessing-dangerous-dirty-and-expensive|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="wi1">{{cite web|title=Is nuclear power the answer to climate change?|url=https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-energy/nuclear-power-answer-climate-change|publisher=World Information Service on Energy|access-date=1 February 2020|archive-date=22 April 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200422202713/https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-energy/nuclear-power-answer-climate-change|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="worldnuclearwastereport">{{cite web |title=World Nuclear Waste Report |url=https://worldnuclearwastereport.org/ |access-date=25 October 2021 |archive-date=15 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230615183744/https://worldnuclearwastereport.org/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="risks">{{cite web |last1=Smith |first1=Brice |title=Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change – Institute for Energy and Environmental Research |url=https://ieer.org/resource/books/insurmountable-risks-dangers-nuclear/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230530034945/https://ieer.org/resource/books/insurmountable-risks-dangers-nuclear/ |archive-date=30 May 2023 |access-date=24 November 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="plane1">{{cite journal |last1=Prăvălie |first1=Remus |last2=Bandoc |first2=Georgeta |title=Nuclear energy: Between global electricity demand, worldwide decarbonisation imperativeness, and planetary environmental implications |journal=Journal of Environmental Management |date=1 March 2018 |volume=209 |pages=81–92 |doi=10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.043 |pmid=29287177 |bibcode=2018JEnvM.209...81P |issn=1095-8630}}</ref>

====Speed of transition and investment needed====
Analysis in 2015 by professor [[Barry Brook (scientist)|Barry W. Brook]] and colleagues found that nuclear energy could displace or remove fossil fuels from the electric grid completely within 10 years. This finding was based on the historically modest and proven rate at which nuclear energy was added in France and Sweden during their building programs in the 1980s.<ref name="journals.plos.org">{{cite journal|title=Potential for Worldwide Displacement of Fossil-Fuel Electricity by Nuclear Energy in Three Decades Based on Extrapolation of Regional Deployment Data|first1=Staffan A.|last1=Qvist|first2=Barry W.|last2=Brook|date=13 May 2015|journal=PLOS ONE|volume=10|issue=5|pages=e0124074|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0124074|pmid=25970621|pmc=4429979|bibcode=2015PLoSO..1024074Q|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.discovery.com/dscovrd/tech/report-world-can-rid-itself-of-fossil-fuel-dependence-in-as-little-as-10-years/ |title=Report: World can Rid Itself of Fossil Fuel Dependence in as little as 10 years |work=Discovery |access-date=2019-01-31 |archive-date=2019-02-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190201120207/http://www.discovery.com/dscovrd/tech/report-world-can-rid-itself-of-fossil-fuel-dependence-in-as-little-as-10-years/ |url-status=live }}</ref> In a similar analysis, Brook had earlier determined that 50% of all [[world energy consumption|global energy]], including transportation [[synthetic fuels]] etc., could be generated within approximately 30 years if the global nuclear fission build rate was identical to historical proven installation rates calculated in [[Gigawatt|GW]] per year per unit of global [[GDP]] (GW/year/$).<ref name="brook_could_2012">{{cite journal |author=Brook |first=Barry W. |year=2012 |title=Could nuclear fission energy, etc., solve the greenhouse problem? The affirmative case |journal=Energy Policy |volume=42 |pages=4–8 |bibcode=2012EnPol..42....4B |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.041}}</ref> This is in contrast to the conceptual studies for [[100% renewable energy]] systems, which would require an order of magnitude more costly global investment per year, which has no historical precedent.<ref name="loftus_critical_2015">{{cite journal |last1=Loftus |first1=Peter J. |last2=Cohen |first2=Armond M. |last3=Long |first3=Jane C. S. |last4=Jenkins |first4=Jesse D. |date=January 2015 |title=A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility? |url=https://www.qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/wcc324-1.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=WIREs Climate Change |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=93–112 |bibcode=2015WIRCC...6...93L |doi=10.1002/wcc.324 |s2cid=4835733 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190806203759/https://www.qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/wcc324-1.pdf |archive-date=2019-08-06 |access-date=2019-12-01}}</ref> These renewable scenarios would also need far greater land devoted to onshore wind and onshore solar projects.<ref name="brook_could_2012" /><ref name="loftus_critical_2015" /> Brook notes that the "principal limitations on nuclear fission are not technical, economic or fuel-related, but are instead linked to complex issues of societal acceptance, fiscal and political inertia, and inadequate critical evaluation of the real-world constraints facing [the other] low-carbon alternatives."<ref name="brook_could_2012" />

Scientific data indicates that&nbsp;– assuming 2021 emissions levels&nbsp;– humanity only has a [[carbon budget]] equivalent to 11 years of emissions left for limiting warming to 1.5{{nbsp}}°C<ref>{{cite news |last1=Neuman |first1=Scott |title=Earth has 11 years to cut emissions to avoid dire climate scenarios, a report says |url=https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1052267118/climate-change-carbon-dioxide-emissions-global-carbon-budget |access-date=9 November 2021 |work=NPR |date=4 November 2021 |language=en |archive-date=30 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220530100806/https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1052267118/climate-change-carbon-dioxide-emissions-global-carbon-budget |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Friedlingstein |first1=Pierre |last2=Jones |first2=Matthew W. |display-authors=etal |date=4 November 2021 |title=Global Carbon Budget 2021 |url=http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/17620/1/essd-2021-386.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=Earth System Science Data Discussions |pages=1–191 |doi=10.5194/essd-2021-386 |s2cid=240490309 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211124190932/http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/17620/1/essd-2021-386.pdf |archive-date=24 November 2021 |access-date=26 November 2021 |doi-access=free}}</ref> while the construction of new nuclear reactors took a median of 7.2–10.9 years in 2018–2020<!--average time between the start of construction and grid connection was 10 years in the past decade-->,<ref name="statusreport"/> substantially longer than, alongside other measures, scaling up the deployment of wind and solar&nbsp;– especially for novel reactor types&nbsp;– as well as being more risky, often delayed and more dependent on state-support.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tromans |first1=Stephen |title=State support for nuclear new build |journal=The Journal of World Energy Law & Business |date=1 March 2019 |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=36–51 |doi=10.1093/jwelb/jwy035}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Nuclear power is too costly, too slow, so it's zero use to Australia's emissions plan |website=[[TheGuardian.com]] |date=18 October 2021 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2021/oct/19/nuclear-power-too-costly-too-slow-so-its-zero-use-to-australias-emissions-plan |access-date=24 November 2021}}</ref><ref name="slowexpensive"/><ref name="gates2"/><ref name="10.5281/zenodo.5573718"/><ref name="worldnuclearreport">{{cite web |title=Renewables vs. Nuclear: 256-0 |url=https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Renewables-vs-Nuclear-256-0.html |website=World Nuclear Industry Status Report |access-date=24 November 2021 |language=en |date=12 October 2021 |archive-date=24 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211124190925/https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Renewables-vs-Nuclear-256-0.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.013"/>{{citekill|date=December 2024}} Researchers have cautioned that novel nuclear technologies&nbsp;– which have been in development since decades,<ref>{{cite news |title=UK poised to confirm funding for mini nuclear reactors for carbon-free energy |url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/15/uk-poised-to-confirm-funding-for-mini-nuclear-reactors-for-green-energy |access-date=24 November 2021 |work=The Guardian |date=15 October 2021 |language=en|quote=Small modular reactors were first developed in the 1950s for use in nuclear-powered submarines. Since then Rolls-Royce has designed reactors for seven classes of submarine and two separate land-based prototype reactors.}}</ref><ref name="10.5281/zenodo.5573718"/><ref name="10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.015"/> are less tested, have higher [[Radioactive waste#Proliferation concerns|proliferation risks]], have more new safety problems, are often far from commercialization and are more expensive<ref name="10.1016/j.erss.2014.04.015"/><ref name="10.5281/zenodo.5573718"/><ref name="10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.012"/><ref name="adva1">{{cite web |title="Advanced" Isn't Always Better {{!}} Union of Concerned Scientists |url=https://ucsusa.org/resources/advanced-isnt-always-better |website=ucsusa.org |access-date=25 November 2021 |language=en |archive-date=25 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211125145228/https://ucsusa.org/resources/advanced-isnt-always-better |url-status=live }}</ref> – are not available in time.<ref name="sol1">{{cite journal |last1=Muellner |first1=Nikolaus |last2=Arnold |first2=Nikolaus |last3=Gufler |first3=Klaus |last4=Kromp |first4=Wolfgang |last5=Renneberg |first5=Wolfgang |last6=Liebert |first6=Wolfgang |title=Nuclear energy - The solution to climate change? |journal=Energy Policy |date=1 August 2021 |volume=155 |page=112363 |doi=10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112363 |s2cid=236254316 |language=en |issn=0301-4215|doi-access=free |bibcode=2021EnPol.15512363M }}</ref><ref name="mil1"/><ref>{{cite web |title=Small Modular Reactors – Was ist von den neuen Reaktorkonzepten zu erwarten? |url=https://www.base.bund.de/DE/themen/kt/kta-deutschland/neue_reaktoren/neue-reaktoren_node.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220606000505/https://www.base.bund.de/DE/themen/kt/kta-deutschland/neue_reaktoren/neue-reaktoren_node.html |archive-date=6 June 2022 |access-date=24 November 2021 |website=BASE |language=de}}</ref><ref name="gates2"/><ref name="10.1080/00963402.2021.1941600">{{cite journal |last1=Makhijani |first1=Arjun |last2=Ramana |first2=M. V. |title=Can small modular reactors help mitigate climate change? |journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |date=4 July 2021 |volume=77 |issue=4 |pages=207–214 |doi=10.1080/00963402.2021.1941600 |bibcode=2021BuAtS..77d.207M |s2cid=236163222 |issn=0096-3402}}</ref><ref name="natgeo">{{cite news |title=The controversial future of nuclear power in the U.S. |url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/nuclear-plants-are-closing-in-the-us-should-we-build-more |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210504162222/https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/nuclear-plants-are-closing-in-the-us-should-we-build-more |url-status=dead |archive-date=May 4, 2021 |access-date=25 November 2021 |date=4 May 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Can Sodium Save Nuclear Power? |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-sodium-save-nuclear-power/ |access-date=24 November 2021 |work=Scientific American |language=en |archive-date=29 July 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210729090905/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-sodium-save-nuclear-power/ |url-status=live }}</ref>{{citekill|date=December 2024}} Critics of nuclear energy often only oppose nuclear fission energy but not nuclear fusion; however, fusion energy is unlikely to be commercially widespread before 2050.<ref name="ITERorg"/><ref name="fusion2">{{cite news |title=A lightbulb moment for nuclear fusion? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/27/nuclear-fusion-research-power-generation-iter-jet-step-carbon-neutral-2050-boris-johnson |access-date=25 November 2021 |work=The Guardian |date=27 October 2019 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="fusiongua">{{cite news |last1=Turrell |first1=Arthur |title=The race to give nuclear fusion a role in the climate emergency |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/28/the-race-to-give-nuclear-fusion-a-role-in-the-climate-emergency |access-date=26 November 2021 |work=The Guardian |date=28 August 2021 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="fusion3">{{cite journal |last1=Entler |first1=Slavomir |last2=Horacek |first2=Jan |last3=Dlouhy |first3=Tomas |last4=Dostal |first4=Vaclav |title=Approximation of the economy of fusion energy |journal=Energy |date=1 June 2018 |volume=152 |pages=489–497 |doi=10.1016/j.energy.2018.03.130 |s2cid=115968344 |language=en |issn=0360-5442|doi-access=free |bibcode=2018Ene...152..489E }}</ref><ref name="fusion4">{{cite journal |last1=Nam |first1=Hoseok |last2=Nam |first2=Hyungseok |last3=Konishi |first3=Satoshi |title=Techno-economic analysis of hydrogen production from the nuclear fusion-biomass hybrid system |journal=International Journal of Energy Research |date=2021 |volume=45 |issue=8 |pages=11992–12012 |doi=10.1002/er.5994 |s2cid=228937388 |language=en |issn=1099-114X|doi-access=free |bibcode=2021IJER...4511992N }}</ref>

====Land use====
The median land area used by US nuclear power stations per 1{{nbsp}}GW installed capacity is {{convert|1.3|sqmi|km2|lk=on}}.<ref name=NEI_news_2015>{{cite web |title=Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant's Footprint |url=https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants |website=nei.org |publisher=NEI |date=July 9, 2015 |access-date=January 6, 2019 |archive-date=January 7, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190107072153/https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=Energy_gov_Fast_Facts >{{cite web | url=https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/01/f58/Ultimate%20Fast%20Facts%20Guide-PRINT.pdf | title=THE ULTIMATE FAST FACTS GUIDE TO NUCLEAR ENERGY | last= | first= | work=[[United States Department of Energy]] | date=2019-01-01 | access-date=2022-06-07 | archive-date=2022-06-07 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220607221430/https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/01/f58/Ultimate%20Fast%20Facts%20Guide-PRINT.pdf | url-status=live }}</ref> To generate the same amount of electricity annually (taking into account [[capacity factor]]s) from [[solar PV]] would require about {{convert|60|sqmi|km2}}, and from a wind farm about {{convert|310|sqmi|km2}}.{{ r | NEI_news_2015 | Energy_gov_Fast_Facts }} Not included in this, is land required for the associated transmission lines, water supply, rail lines, mining and processing of nuclear fuel, and for waste disposal.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf|title=Quadrennial technology review concepts in integrated analysis|date=September 2015|page=388|access-date=2019-01-12|archive-date=2020-03-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200307173725/https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/qtr-2015-chapter10.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>